DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has has been filed of parent App. No. CN 202321578720.7.
Applicant’s Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of response was received on 09/10/2026. Presently claims 21-40 are pending. Claims 1-20 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has canceled claims 1-20 and has introduced new claims 21-40.
Applicant’s amendments regarding the pending new claims have introduced new issues with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112. Therein, Applicant's amendments necessitated a new ground of rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 and this action has therefore been made final.
Claim Objections
Claims 21, 28-29, 34, and 38-40 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21, line 14, change: “[[a]] the user.”
Claim 28, line 3, change: “in [[the]] a continuous manner or in [[the]] a skip-level manner.”
Claim 29, line 2, change: “equal to [[a]] the preset number threshold…”
Claim 34, line 3, change: “is [[slidden]] slid…”
Claim 38, line 1, change: “wherein
Claim 39, line 1, change: “wherein[[,]] the skip-level manner[[,]] further…”
Claim 39, line 6, change: “[[the]] a highest…”
Claim 40, line 11, change: “a [[the]] continuous…”
Claim 40, line 21, change: “by [[the]] a user…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretations
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a. Claims 21 and 40 - “airflow speed regulator” read as a regulator [means] for regulating airflow speed.
has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use generic placeholders:
a. Claims 21 and 40 – “regulator”
coupled with functional language:
a. “for regulating airflow speed”
without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
a. Corresponding structure is found in [0042]-[0046].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 21 and 40, each of the claims recite “a preset adjustment magnitude within at least a partial interval of the entire adjustable airflow speed interval formed by the plurality of airflow speed levels”. From the specification, there is no written description regarding as to a partial interval of the entire adjustable airflow speed interval. Therein, there is a lack of written description suggesting to one of ordinary skill in the art of the newly amended limitation. The amended claims of 21 and 40 have introduced new matter.
Dependent claims are also rejected due to their dependency of a rejected independent claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 22, 25, and 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 22 recites “the adjustment magnitude increases as the speed at which…” and “the adjustment magnitude increases as the time length….” In lines 3 and 5, respectively. These limitations are unclear because the relationship between the adjustment magnitude and the speed cannot be determined. It is unclear and ambiguous if whether the adjustment magnitude increases as the speed increases or decreases. The current claim language does not specify if the speed increases or decreases. The same reasoning applies to the “time length”. It is unclear if the time length increases or decreases as the adjustment magnitude increases. For these reasons, the claim is indefinite.
The language recited in claim 25 is indefinite and unclear. It is unclear how the adjustment magnitude being positively correlated with the speed or the time length comprises a transformation from the continuous matter to the skip-level manner. It is recommended to rephrase the grammar or language of the claim to provide clarity. Further, the term “adjustment” in line 3 lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear with respect to which adjustment is being specified since an adjustment has not been introduced or recited in the claim.
Claim 32 is indefinite because it is unclear whether “a speed” recited in line 2 of the claim is the same speed or a different speed with respect to “a speed” recited in claim 21. Further, it is unclear how the speed changes with respect to an increase in the adjustment magnitude. It is unclear and ambiguous if whether the adjustment magnitude increases as the speed increases or decreases. The current claim language does not specify if the speed increases or decreases.
Claim 33 is indefinite because it is unclear whether “a speed” recited in line 2 of the claim is the same speed or a different speed with respect to “a speed” recited in claim 21. Further, it is unclear how the speed changes with respect to an increase in the adjustment magnitude. It is unclear and ambiguous if whether the adjustment magnitude increases as the speed increases or decreases. The current claim language does not specify if the speed increases or decreases.
Claim 34 is indefinite because it is unclear whether “a speed” recited in line 2 of the claim is the same speed or a different speed with respect to “a speed” recited in claim 21. Further, it is unclear how the speed changes with respect to an increase in the adjustment magnitude. It is unclear and ambiguous if whether the adjustment magnitude increases as the speed increases or decreases. The current claim language does not specify if the speed increases or decreases.
Claim 35 is indefinite because it is unclear whether “a time length” recited in line 3 of the claim is the time length or a different time length with respect to “a time length” recited in claim 21. Further, it is unclear how the time length changes with respect to an increase in the adjustment magnitude. It is unclear and ambiguous if whether the adjustment magnitude increases as the time length increases or decreases. The current claim language does not specify if the time length increases or decreases.
Dependent claims are also rejected due to their dependency of a rejected independent claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 and 40 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office action.
The closest prior art of record is: Hu (CN 217481566).
Regarding claim 21, Hu fails to disclose or suggest of a preset adjustment magnitude within at least a partial interval of the entire adjustable airflow speed interval formed by the plurality of airflow speed levels; wherein, the adjustment magnitude is positively correlated with a speed at which a user performs an action on the airflow speed regulator or positively correlated with a time length for which a user performs an action on the airflow speed regulator.
Regarding claim 40, Hu fails to disclose or suggest wherein the fan is preset with a plurality of threshold intervals; the airflow speed regulator is configured to: determine the adjustment magnitude according to a respective one of the plurality of threshold intervals in which an action speed or an action time length falls; and adjust the current airflow speed level according to the determined adjustment magnitude; wherein, the action speed is a speed at which the airflow speed regulator is operated by the user, the action time length is a time length for which the airflow speed regulator is operated by the user; the plurality of threshold intervals correspond to different adjustment magnitudes from each other.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC J ZAMORA ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7928. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am- 5:00 pm EST alternating Fridays off.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, COURTNEY HEINLE can be reached at (571)270-3508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC J ZAMORA ALVAREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745 10/01/2026
